Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Transitioning from Firefox 2.0 to Firefox 3.6


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Euphemism

Euphemism

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:25 AM

Posted 28 January 2011 - 01:32 AM

I've been stuck on Firefox 2.0.0.16 since... Well, a very long time. I think it was the latest version when I switched. I'm hesitant to switch because I remember the days of frequent browser crashes and having to rebuild the cache from scratch instead of only losing the crashed session's data (the latter is something I've stopped with an add-on, if I remember correctly).

2.0 is the first time I've experienced a relatively-stable version of Firefox. For that, it has been my favourite and I've resisted change - especially while hearing about the woes of later versions from friends who came to accept browser crashes as a common part of using Firefox.

However, I've discovered that Fingerfox - one of the extensions I consider mandatory - is compatible and I'm in the process of getting my hard drive replaced. Now seemed like the right time to make a choice about which version of Fx to use.

I just have some questions, first, in the hopes of making the decision an informed one.

  • Most importantly, is it stable (as in: doesn't crash often)?
  • Is it really less of a memory hog than previous Firefox versions?
  • I read a lot about it working well with Windows 7. What about Vista (32-bit)?
  • Is 3GB of RAM enough to support the latest version of Firefox?
  • Will adjusting to the new bookmarks handling be difficult?
  • Are the security features as useful as the Mozilla site makes them sound?
  • Is there anything important I should know before deciding whether to make the switch?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and especially thanks to anyone who responds.

Also, I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong subforum. This seems like the right area, but I'm not completely certain.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 doinmeedin

doinmeedin

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:02:25 PM

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:07 AM

Well i supopose it's up to th personal preference of the peron using it, but in answer to your questions :

* Most importantly, is it stable (as in: doesn't crash often)? No, not if used sensibly and kept clean of any dirt ( if you know what i mean ).
* Is it really less of a memory hog than previous Firefox versions? No, not at all especially if you have a decent amount of RAM.
* I read a lot about it working well with Windows 7. What about Vista (32-bit)? Yes mine runs fine and diddly !
* Is 3GB of RAM enough to support the latest version of Firefox? Yes i only have 2 gig !
* Will adjusting to the new bookmarks handling be difficult? No, once your sorted you'll find some perfect addons that can handle your bookmarks.
* Are the security features as useful as the Mozilla site makes them sound? Yes, FF take care of their products and have a good reporting system for troubled users.
* Is there anything important I should know before deciding whether to make the switch? Yes, make the switch sooner rather than later and get started !

Good Luck and don't worry Euphemism !

P.S If your not too sure see if one of your friends has it with Vista 32bit, and go watch it at work !

Edited by doinmeedin, 28 January 2011 - 08:09 AM.

If life is not an option then why are we not given the option in the first place !


#3 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:08:25 AM

Posted 28 January 2011 - 12:16 PM

Newer versions of Ff are much more stable, offer more useful features (bookmarks are backed up daily, for example) and you are notified about security patches and can install them quickly and easily. They are also much faster! Your RAM is more than enough so you don't have to worry about Ff's memory usage.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#4 Broni

Broni

    The Coolest BC Computer


  • BC Advisor
  • 42,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Daly City, CA
  • Local time:06:25 AM

Posted 28 January 2011 - 12:19 PM

Mozilla is about to release Firefox 4 next month, so you're well behind.
Some programs, like browsers, should always be kept up to date.
Firefox 2 is an obsolete program and thus dangerous, security-wise.

My Website

p4433470.gif

My help doesn't cost a penny, but if you'd like to consider a donation, click p22001735.gif


 


#5 doinmeedin

doinmeedin

  • Members
  • 455 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:02:25 PM

Posted 28 January 2011 - 04:03 PM

Firefox 2 is an obsolete program and thus dangerous, security-wise.


Here, Here, Broni ! A lot less insecure than the latest versions !

Edited by doinmeedin, 28 January 2011 - 04:04 PM.

If life is not an option then why are we not given the option in the first place !


#6 Euphemism

Euphemism
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:25 AM

Posted 29 January 2011 - 01:25 AM

Thanks for the information. :) I didn't really put much thought into it being a security risk, since it was secure (enough) when I first installed it. But I suppose that's my lacking knowledge shining through, there. May also explain my issues with malware...

I think the shiny 'new' features may just be worth the transition, so long as bookmarks management is simple enough (and I do love the idea of daily backups!). After all, if it can run smoothly on 2GB of RAM, I don't think I'll have any problems in that regard. And the security patch notifications sound like a great bonus, as well. Heaven knows I need it!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users